Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1132 (RAJ)

Shakti Singh v. State of Raj.

2013-06-04

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHARMA, Vacation J.—This is a revision petition against the judgment and order dated 5.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2013 (Shakti Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) confirming the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur in relation to FIR No. 53/2012, P.S. Khunkhuna, Nagaur under Sections 302, 458, 147, 148, 149, 323, 326 and 307 IPC. 2. According to the prosecution case, the son of complainant Manohar Singh, Kailash @ Mod Singh, Babulal, son of brother of complainant Rampratap and Ajay Singh were present at the hotel of the complainant. At that time, Mohan Singh, Tiku Singh and one other person came at the hotel and started consuming liquor inside the hotel and when his son stopped them, they gave threatening to him and went away. In the night, at 9.00 - 9.15 p.m., they came in a bus No. RJ 37-P.A. 0971 and gave beating to his son by sword and lathis. They also gave beatings to his brother's son Rampratap and one Babulal by sword and lathis. Shakti Singh (present petitioner) inflicted sword blow on both hands of his son and other persons gave beating through lathis, due to which Manohar Singh sustained grievous injuries and died and Rampratap and Babulal also sustained grievous injuries. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a juvenile and gravity of offence cannot be considered against the juvenile. He further submitted that the petitioner is of 16 years 9 months of age and there is no specific allegation against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that report of the Probation Officer was not in any way against the revisionist. Hence he may be enlarged on bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition in general. 5. The report of the Probation Officer was called, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner. 6. In view of the fact that the revisionist is a juvenile, his bail application is liable to be considered in accordance with Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Juvenile Act'), which provides:- 12. 5. The report of the Probation Officer was called, wherein nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner. 6. In view of the fact that the revisionist is a juvenile, his bail application is liable to be considered in accordance with Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Juvenile Act'), which provides:- 12. Bail of juvenile.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order." 7. A perusal of Section 12 of the Juvenile Act reveals that a juvenile is entitled to bail notwithstanding gravity of the crime. His bail can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is also manifest that the said Section 12 of the Juvenile Act over-rides the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Code') and other laws for the time being in force and, therefore, in the event of any inconsistency, Section 12 of the Juvenile Act will prevail. 8. It is also manifest that the said Section 12 of the Juvenile Act over-rides the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Code') and other laws for the time being in force and, therefore, in the event of any inconsistency, Section 12 of the Juvenile Act will prevail. 8. Bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Act exist. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the above provisions of the Act. If the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there would have been absolutely no necessity for the implement of the aforesaid act. The language that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, the juvenile accused shall be released. Not only this, the Parliament re-considered the entire matter and repealed the old Act of 1986 by introducing new Act No. 56 of 2000, raising the age from 16 to 18 years. This has been done keeping in view the welfare of the child so that even after committing an offence, a child may not become a hardened criminal but he may reform himself. 9. Both the courts below rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner may come in the contact of known criminals and his life may be put to danger. 10. For appreciating this ground, it would be necessary to see as to what the word "association" used in Section 12 of the Juvenile Act conveys. 11. The word "association" has been defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary (6th Edition) as an act of associating; organised body of persons for a joint purpose; fellowship, companionship; mental connection between related ideas. 12. The above meaning of word "association" has also been adopted in Legal Glossary, Government of India, 1988 Edition. 13. Thus, to prove "association", it must be shown that the persons so joined, have a common purpose and that there is a mental connection between their related ideas. 12. The above meaning of word "association" has also been adopted in Legal Glossary, Government of India, 1988 Edition. 13. Thus, to prove "association", it must be shown that the persons so joined, have a common purpose and that there is a mental connection between their related ideas. In such view of the matter, if a person has joined a known criminal or criminals only in a single case, by that, it cannot be inferred that this single act would bring that person in association with known criminal(s). There can be apprehension of his associating with known criminal(s) only when there is sufficient evidence to show that he has been joining them regularly so as to given an impression that he would continue to join them in future also. 14. Thus, I am of the view that the single instance of a child delinquent joining the company of some known criminal or criminals would not be sufficient to satisfy the definition of the word "association" used in Section 12 of the Juvenile Act. If his past conduct has been of such a nature, which indicates his continuous association with known criminal or criminals, then there would be justification for inferring that there would be likelihood that his release may bring him in association with known criminal(s). 15. I am, therefore, of the view that a single instance of joining the revisionist with other co-accused cannot be sufficient to hold that his release shall bring him in association with known criminals. In such view of the matter, it appears that the appeal was wrongly decided and the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the Juvenile Justice Board are liable to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.1.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur as well as the order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur in the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed. 17. Let the revisionist Shakti Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 50,000/- by his natural guardian, grand father, Shri Narpat Singh S/o Shri Sawai Singh with two sound and solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 17. Let the revisionist Shakti Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 50,000/- by his natural guardian, grand father, Shri Narpat Singh S/o Shri Sawai Singh with two sound and solvent sureties amounting to Rs. 25,000/-, each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur with stipulation that the revisionist juvenile will be produced on each and every date of hearing before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sri Ganganagar or where the case is being transferred and whenever called upon to do so. Further, they will keep watch over the juvenile that the juvenile may not indulge in any other criminal activity.